Blog entry

12 February 2012

By Paul Halford

Principals Behaving Badly

The Dark Side

At a recent conference on developing leadership a workshop presenter suggested that there were times when a principal might “go over to the dark side” This suggestion was from a presenter who works in one of the peak professional bodies charged with the development of educational leaders. It was greeted with a ripple of recognition by many of the principals in the room. However, the presenter went on to warn that good managers should make sure that their stay on the dark side was short and did not become a place regularly visited and certainly not one in which permanent residence was taken.

The term “toxic” has become popular in describing work environments. It is worth reflecting on how it is that schools become “toxic workplaces.” Is it the result of circumstance? Or is it the general distribution of human foolishness coalescing into a dysfunctional workplace? Could it be the result of poor management? Or could it be the result of darker human forces including workplace bullying, self –promotion and intolerance. Perhaps it is the result of principals taking the kind of advice offered in the introduction to this article and then finding its success intoxicating? These Principals travel to the “dark side” but fail to return. The behaviour becomes embedded to the detriment of the person, the organization and the individuals who fall foul of it.

Young Dr Evil

I have a friend who is completing his doctoral thesis on the concept of evil. He is a secularist who has based his research on the portrayal of evil in popular literature. We affectionately refer to him as Young Dr Evil. He argues that evil is a provocative term. You can be very bad but not considered evil. In fact you can be very, very, very, very bad and not be evil. There is an unlimited number of “verys” that could be inserted and still not move over the line to evil. However, the young doctor does believe that you don’t have to be evil to do something evil. And once you have done it, it gets easier to do it again, particularly if it is successful.

Judy Smeed’s review of the literature relating to the use of power in schools includes Blasé and Blasé’s leveling of Principal’s negative behavior (Smeed 2009 P28.) It is chilling reading. Level 1 has principals discounting, isolating and abandoning teachers. Level 2 involves spying and sabotaging. Finally, at Level 3 Principals have escalated to serious aggression, lying, forcing teachers out of their jobs, harassment and racism. From the same review Hoyle’s leadership continuum is cited as having “illegitimate, self interested manipulation” (Smeed 2009 P27) at its dark end. Is that the unmistakable smell of sulpher?

Young Dr Evil later sent me this quote relating to the Nazi war criminal Eichman

“Except for an extra-ordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all.” (Arendt, 1994, P267)

This malevolence seems to be rooted in self- interest, self-promotion, self-gratification, self-preservation or just plain selfishness. It would be easy to call it the traits of the immature personality but I have come to believe that behind every selfish act lies an unresolved sense of injustice. Very often this sense of injustice goes unrecognized by the perpetrator - it simply lurks behind their decision making. Perhaps they have been bullied at school or perhaps they experienced social disadvantage. Whatever the reason it would seem that

“Leaders who have been wounded can fall prey to wounding ways themselves” (Beatty 2009)

So, with one tongue firmly in cheek and the other tongue licking my lips (because it’s forked) I would like to suggest some tell tales signs that might signify the exercise of the black arts of leadership.

Some Tell Tale Signs

The Greater Good

If you find yourself sitting in a room where someone’s fate is being decided “for the good of the school” - watch out for Beelzebub. Somewhere amidst this utilitarian conversation there is likely to be a distressed individual. The expulsion of a student for smoking pot “for the good of the other students” will be the sacrificing of a confused young man, with mental health needs. Or if you find yourself on the edges of a plan to rid your organization of an employee “in the best interests of the school” look for the tufty horns on the foreheads of those involved.

A genuine sense of evil is invoked when principals have sought to preserve the reputation of their schools by hiding pedaphilia, ignoring bullying or putting sexual harassment claims into the closet with the other skeletons “for the greater good.” Yet, over the last twenty years, these kinds of events have regularly surfaced, received intense media coverage and even criminal charges. The victims are deeply traumatized not just by the actions of the pedaphiles and bullies but by the knowledge that as abstract a notion as a school’s reputation was more important than the justice they were entitled to. These events seem to occur more often in private schools. This is in part due to having boarding facilities but also the intense competition for market share that requires a spotless reputation. Let’s hope that principals in these situations don’t take the devil’s bargain.

Crash or Crash Through

One of the hallmarks of the Howard years was the erosion of workplace security. Some employers saw an opportunity to ignore the law and industrial agreements safe in the knowledge that the political pendulum had swung their way. In education this was more prevalent in the private sector where the power of unions has always been very limited. The introduction of “Work Choices” into schools was exemplary. A significant number of private school principals, often encouraged by their School Councils, saw an opportunity to embark on “renewal” programs resulting in demotions, retrenchments, forced resignations and sackings. In the informal conversations at Principal conferences it was apparent that these were intoxicating times for some school leaders. In some cases the Principals themselves eventually lost their positions because they had “gone too far”.

Principals can become involved in cynical calculations that those whose employment is being unlawfully terminated will be unable, unlikely or unwilling to complete the grueling demands of civil court proceedings even when they have a high chance of success. This really is the dark side that the workshop presenters seemed to be suggesting. The damage to schools taken down this path by their principals is unpredictable. Staff can become demoralized, parents can lose confidence, executive staff can have breakdowns and it can even result in the deterioration of student achievements. The affect on the employee denied procedural fairness can manifest in turn in its own dark ways.

Beware the Coven

Most workplaces have social cliques. In schools the clique is often bonded by particular views about education. The “literacy wars” of the last few years are an example of passionately held views forming fault lines in staff rooms. The use of Naplan could well develop into struggles for supremacy between “passionate, single minded advocates who rarely acknowledge that there could be some good in the opposing views.” (MacNeill 2009)

Roland Barth’s research led him to suggest four distinct types of relationships characterizing schools. “Adversarial” relationships were one type of relationship. These are characterized by “people in competition to develop their own resources and reputation often putting down the practices of others.” (Avenell 2009) Smeed warns “Groups can become toxic when they become committed to their own goals and norms.” (Smeed 2009 p31) The clique becomes bonded by shared views on the right way for classrooms to be conducted and are often harsh in their judgment of colleagues who differ.

Principals can become unduly influenced by a clique within a school. This can be through alignment with their views or fear of their power. What is worse is when a principal forms a clique or inner circle that becomes impervious to counsel or advice from outside it. If a school principal is genuinely interested in capacity building then this is the worst development that could happen. Small cliques convened to drive an agenda seldom achieve much beyond alienation.

What Possessed Him (or Her)?

Recent research by the Hays Group (Avenell 2009) suggests that the Principal’s behavior sets approximately 70 per cent of the school climate. Principals with authoritarian, aloof and arrogant personalities will want control over all aspects of an organization. This can be a determination down to the size and type of font used by teachers on school notices. Other Principals, characterized by Fullan, as “cosmopolitans” will want to see a thousand flowers bloom and actively seek ways to distribute leadership. (Fullan 1991)

Personal ambition can be a powerful motivator and something to be expected in teachers who have achieved a principalship. However, we need to distinguish between ambitions for our organizations and purely personal careerist ambitions. Ambition can become misguided and descend into ruthlessness and bullying. Principals are in positions of power. We should be alert and ready to recognise the signs that indicate the abuse of power.

There is a real possibility that the Naplan results and the proposed publication of league tables will lead some principals away from collaborative work places and towards command and control techniques. The pressure for results will see the tightening of control and a reduction in flexibility. Principals will be vulnerable as part of the “accountability” measures. This vulnerability could well become a debilitating determination to control all aspects of their schools.

Angels and Demons

Listening to late night radio I heard a theologian suggest that there is a monster and a saint inside each of us. Being a principal certainly involves balancing contradictory tensions. Staff would like vision but will want collaboration. They will ask for flexibility but expect decisiveness. They will want direction but insist on autonomy.

The theologian suggested that it is how we exercise our power over others that determines if we are sitting with the angels or the demons. Each exercise of power over another runs the risk of eroding the relationship with that other. Each time we seek to exercise power with others we promote trust and confidence in the relationship.

After nearly 35 years in education I have been told I am naïve, overly optimistic, not a big enough bastard and too sensitive. They are all epithets that I can live with. As Principals we must model and live the “the foundational behaviours for positive relationships.”(Avenell 2009) Schools must be optimistic places. There are too few times and places in our society where the nation’s young are free from cynicism and self interest. We need to believe that the collective noun for a group of principals is not a “lack.”

Paul Halford is a Senior Principal with the International Education Agency of Papua New Guinea and is also the Principal of Korobosea International School in Port Moresby. He has worked in most sectors of Australian schools including independent, community, state, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish and international schools.